I've quoted extracts from "The Invention of the Jewish People" a couple of times before (link and link) so let me give a broader overview of it now. It's one of the most thought-provoking books I've read in a while. It poses enormous challenges to Jewish ideology and self-image but also a few for those of us who are critics of Jews.
The author, Shlomo Sand, is a former professor of history at Tel Aviv university. He generally comes across as a leftist who wants Israel to stop being an "ethnocracy" [a word he uses] and more like a "normal" democracy, such as the countries of western Europe or the USA. (See here (link) for an exposition of his politics and worldview). That is the political agenda his history is written to serve.

The essence of the book is his argument that the Jews are not, and never have been, an ethnically pure people; and that they continue to cherish this fantasy in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The Jewish avoidance of proselytism and distaste for would-be converts is well-known (at least among the red-pilled) in the present day. But Sand argues that it has not always been so. He quotes Jewish population figures from various times and shows that certain massive growth spurts could not possibly have come about through natural increase. In other words, the Jews were engaging in proselytism and conversion, on a mass scale. His contention is that Judaism originally competed with Christianity for converts but when Christianity gained the upper hand and was adopted officially by the Roman empire, Jewish proselytism was forbidden. Something similar happened in the later Islamic empires. Thereafter proselytism was confined to outlying regions where imperial edicts could not be enforced.
Sand argues that Sephardi Jews (Sefarad means Spain), were largely North African converts to Judaism. There was also significant Jewish proselytism among Arabs. Indeed, Sand's account confirms claims about the similarities between Jews and Muslims and sheds light on why they exist (link and link).

The most controversial part of Sand's argument is his claim that Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of the Khazars, a grouping of east European Turkic/Slavic peoples who converted to Judaism in the 8th century. There are suggestions in the historical record that not all of the Khazars converted to Judaism, only the upper stratum of society. This suggests a possible explanation for the higher average intelligence exhibited by Ashkenazi Jews. If you took the upper stratum of any society, you would find it had a higher average intelligence. If that upper stratum then adopted an ideology that called for the avoidance of outmarriage, you could expect its genetic distinctiveness to be preserved to a high degree.

One of the things that continues to intrigue and puzzle me about Jews, even as I spend much of my time reading what they write and what others have written about them, is their obsessive hostility to Russia. You see this almost every day in the press, endless articles about "the Russian threat", "The Menace of Putin", etc. You can see the rationale, from a morally myopic ethnic perspective, for most items on the Jewish agenda. They support Israel cuz it's their country; they support immigration to dilute the demographic strength of the majority population; they support restrictions on free speech cuz the goy shouldn't be allowed to say bad things about the Chosen and anyway it might lead to A New Holocaust. But the animus towards Russia doesn't make any obvious sense.

My best hypothesis previously was that it represented some kind of would-be revenge for "The Tsarist Pogroms", even though these pogroms are largely an imaginary construct the Jews have confected and Communist tyranny could reasonably be considered an appropriate quittance for almost any act of wrong-doing. Sand's book has suggested another hypothesis to me, although he does not mention it himself. Jewish Russophobia might be the Revenge of the Khazars. Because it was Russia that defeated and disempowered the Khazar kingdom, although Mongols delivered the fatal blow some time later. Could the Khazar-descended Jews continue to have nurture some folk memory of this? Even if the conscious memory has been lost, could the anti-Russian memes it must have inspired somehow have trickled down across the generations? Or is there such a thing as ancestral antagonism, hostility in the genes?

When did the great Khazar empire collapse? In the past it was assumed by many that it happened in the second half of the tenth century. The principality of Kiev, out of which grew the first Russian kingdom, was for many years a vassal of the rulers of Khazaria. The principality grew stronger in the tenth century, struck an alliance with the Eastern Roman Empire and attacked its powerful Khazar neighbors. In 965 (or 969), Sviatoslav I, the ruling prince of Kiev, attacked the Khazar city of Sarkel, which controlled the Don River, and captured it. Sarkel was a fortified city, originally built by Byzantine engineers, of important strategic value to the Jewish empire, and its loss marked the beginning of the empire’s decline. Contrary to prevalent opinion, however, this was not the end of Khazaria.

Reports about the fate of the capital Itil in this war are contradictory. Some Arab sources state that it fell; others state that it survived the Russian victory. Since it consisted largely of huts and tents, it may well have been rebuilt. What is certain, though, is that in the second half of the tenth century Khazaria lost its hegemonic position in the region. Prince Vladimir I of Kiev, Sviatoslav’s young son, expanded the boundaries of his principality as far as the Crimea, and,in a significant step for the future of Russia, converted to Christianity. His alliance with the Eastern Roman Empire undermined its long connection with Khazaria, and in 1016 CE a joint Byzantine-Russian force attacked and defeated the Jewish kingdom.

Sand claims that east European Jewry was the broken remnant of this Khazar kingdom. He also points out that modern Jewish historians have gone quiet on the Khazar kingdom even though it may have been the source of Ashkenazi Jewry from among whom Zionism ultimately emerged. Why the silence? Because the history of the Khazar kingdom undermines any claim the Jews have to be a people of pure lineage, descended from the inhabitants of ancient Judea.

The deconstruction of the fables of Jewish and Israeli historians in general is a strong point of the book. Sand demonstrates that they have bent over backwards to make Biblical fables seem like real history, even though decisive evidence exists to the contrary. The notion of "Exile", so central to Jewish thought, and usually supposed to have followed an expulsion decreed by Roman or Arab conquerors, he dismisses as a fantasy, unsupported by any evidence. These fables continue to be taught in Israeli classrooms.

Sand also shows how Jewish historians have nurtured the myth of a Jewish ethnos, insisting over the years that Jewish genetic identity was preserved despite their geographic dispersal. They have done this by artfully obscuring inconvenient facts and countervailing evidence. When they deign to discuss the Khazars at all, for example, Jewish historians have tended to insinuate that they were somehow seeded from the original population of Judea.

If Sand's book demolishes the Jewish self-image, it also, as I indicated previously, poses some challenges for critics of Jews, who have tended to accept, from an opposing point of view, the basic claim Jews make that they are a "race" or genetically distinct ethnic group. For example, one reason I generally prefer the term "European" to "white" is that it excludes Jews, on the assumption that they originated in the Middle East. If, in fact, Ashkenazi Jews are descended from east European Khazars, however, this logic would no longer apply.

A vigorous conception of self, a confident assertiveness and even a national mythos of some kind are probably prerequisites for the healthy existence of any people. Jews have often played a crucial role in undermining the intellectual foundations of European peoplehood. Now a Jew has brought the same destructive critical spirit to bear on his own kind.

6
comments:

Jewry’s hostility to Russia is addressed from time to time by Brother Nathanael, an American Jew who became an Orthodox Christian. One example is his video ‘Dostoevsky Versus The Jews’, which ends with him saying:

‘The killing of Christianity, Dostoevsky foresaw, would find a fitting grave in the Judaized West but when a star rises in the East, casting its rays on the benighted West, its bright and holy light no Jew can kill.’

The star in the East is the Russian Orthodox Church, in revival under Putin. Given the Jewish hatred of Christianity, any resurgence of the faith is most unwelcome, and I would guess that Putin’s support for the church goes a long way towards explaining the hostility directed towards him personally in the ‘Judaized West’.

Great book, well researched by a jewish professor of history at the University of Tel Aviv. A great resource for anyone wanting to know the history and origins of Zionism and the racial history of Ashkenazi jew in particular.

Anti-Semitism or anti-Hamitism!.When you boil it all down those calling themselves Jews are in fact Canaanites, if not in the flesh then in spirit..Canaan the son of Ham took the land allotted to Shem by force. The Edomites married into the Canaanites. Judah married a Canaanite. The pure blood line beginning with Judah/Tamar [ Gen. 38:14-19 ]ended with Jesus Christ..In Talmudic tradition the mother defines identity so then the people who are today identifying as Jews are in reality Canaanites.."Canaanite", Strongs Hebrew Concordance 3669, a merchant, a trafficker. .The “Jews” Babylonian Talmud says: "Five things did Canaan charge his sons: love one another, love robbery, love lewdness, hate your masters, and do not speak the truth" The Last Will of Canaan, Babylonian Talmud, Peshachim 113b. .To be an Orthodox Jew is to agree with the Talmud that, "It is permitted to deceive a goy." (Baba Kama 113b) , .No blemished Judah blood [Judah/Canaanite] was allowed in the line of those chosen to antecede Jesus Christ.

>He generally comes across as a leftist who wants Israel to stop being an "ethnocracy"

This is actually what I want for western countries. It's implemented in the middle east, where in some cases the natives are a minority while Bangladeshis and others form the skyscraper building class.

>The essence of the book is his argument that the Jews are not, and never have been, an ethnically pure people

This is the line of attack leftists use again white ethnostates. *It can be resolved with genetic testing and to an extent it has.* In fact, Ashkenazi Jews do cluster together on genetic distance maps. Mizrahi (middle easter/oriental/Arab) Jews and Sephardi (spanish/north african) Jews have their own clusters. His is the "all or nothing" argument. A nation is a union of tribes, tribes are unions of families. "White" Americans (for example) could have remained a union of European people who came there. Israel (as a concept) could remain a union of Mizrahis, Ashkenazis and Sephardis. This "all or nothing" thinking leads to opening doors to 70 IQ African immigrants.

Whether you want to nuke Israel or not, you shouldn't fall for the hoodwink behind this argument.

.The Edomites lived and prospered in a land separate from Israel but were later attacked and defeated by Saul (1 Sam. 14:47) and some forty years later, by David (2 Sam. 8:13-14). Later, in the reign of Jehosaphat, (c 914 BC), the Edomites attempted to invade Israel, but failed (2 Chron. 20:22). They later joined with Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Chaldea, in his invasion of Judaea, the Judaean kingdom of the Two Tribes, and helped in his destruction of Jerusalem as well as the subsequent deportation of the Judaeans to Babylonia (c 630-562 BC). The terrible cruelty displayed by the Edomites at this time provoked fearful denunciations by the later prophets (Isa 34:5-8; Isa 63:1-4; Jer 49:17). Afterwards, the Edomites invaded and held possession of the south of Palestine but they eventually fell under the growing Chaldean power (Jer 27:3, Jer 27:6). The Edomites were thus Semites since they are closely related in blood and in language to the Israelites but they had no claim on the unique Bible Covenant and Birthright Promises gifted by God to Abraham, then to Jacob/Israel and then to his descendants. However, for more than four centuries, the Edomites continued to prosper but during the warlike rule of the Maccabeans, they were again completely subdued, and even forced to conform to Jewish laws and rites, and submit to the government of Jewish prefects. Here, at this time, the Edomites become incorporated within the resurgent Judaean kingdom. .Edomites are therefore descended from Edom (Esau) whose descendants later intermarried with the Turks to produce a Turco-Edomite mixture which later became known as Khazars. That is, most of today's Jews are descendants of this interbreeding that produced a race called Khazars who had once governed an empire called Khazaria. Furthermore, this hybrid race Edomite/Turk/Khazar who created the Khazar kingdom and who between the seventh and ninth centuries AD, adopted the religion of Judaism. And, it is these Khazar Jews who are the ancestors of the vast majority of today's Jewish people. That is, Edomite/Turk/Khazars are the ancestors of the modern "Jews" including the Torah-true and Zionist Jews who spuriously claim right to the land of Palestine claiming it it is theirs by biblical demands and ancestral rights..Consequently, the majority of today's Jewish people are known as "Jews" not because they are Judahites and descended from Jacob/Israel but because their Edomite/Turk/Khazar ancestors in their Kingdom of Khazaria adopted the religion of Judaism, called themselves "Jews" and arrogated the Birthright Promises and Bible Covenants belonging to the Israelites, but especially those belonging to the Judahites..Malachi 1:1-4 prophesies of this controversy, showing the Zionist motives of Esau. Verse 4 says,.4 Though Edom says, “We have been beaten down, but we will return and build up the ruins”; thus says the Lord of hosts, “They may build, but I will tear down; and men will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the Lord is indignant forever.”.This is a prophecy of modern Zionism in the past century. The spirit of Edom has worked within world Jewry, saying, “we will return.” God does not refute this, but says only that “I will tear down.” If Edom had not returned and rebuilt the ruins, God would have nothing to tear down, so the establishment of the Israeli state was inevitable..The establishment of the Israeli state was the fulfillment of Isaac’s blessing upon Esau, for at that time Esau received the dominion and took the birthright name Israel for itself..